On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 06:42:34 -0500, Mike Wallace <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>On 16 Oct 2001, at 6:20, Reef Fish wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:40:49 -0400, Alfred E. Kirkland
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> Hi Al, glad to see wade in with some NEW ideas, so that we can start
>> beating a NEW HORSE.  :-)   I am damned tired of beating the old one
>> because this one is RELEVANT to how I view things in the mad, mad,
>> mad, mad, litigous world or illogical and oxymoronic practices.
>
>None of his ideas are new to the former discussion.

His ideas of HOW to violate a signed contract (by claiming not
having read it and others do it) are certainly BRAND NEW.  That's
what I called "weaseling" out of a voluntarily signed contract!

>
>> >Bob said:
>> >
>> ><<<Have you read the WAIVER and RELEASE of the Peter Hughes Fleet
>> >regarding deaths, even if it's caused by negligence on the part of
>> >members of the Fleet (REQUIRED to be signed by all passengers before
>> >the can dive with the Fleet)?>>>
>>
>> This is an VERY important comment to explain MY STANCE on this.
>
>Why didn't you just explain your STANCE on the former one.

Sorry, I don't know which former one you're referring to.  I have
only ONE STANCE on this.


>> When I voluntarily SIGN an agreement, even if it's not a legal one,
>> I adhere to it!
>
>An admirable quality to be sure... and one that I hold as well.

Of which I have no doubt.
>
>
>>
>> In the case of the Peter Hughes WAIVER, I signed it every time, fully
>> realizing the ridiculous extreme the organization excuses itself from
>> ALL liabilities.  But once I SIGNED it, I intended to abide by MY SIDE
>> of the agreement, on MORAL grounds alone, and on legal grounds!
>
>Good, you are a man of your word. I agree with it also.

Okay.
>
>

>> If I am NOT willing to abide by the ridiculous conditions of the
>> WAIVER, then I wouldn't sign it, hence I wouldn't patronize the Fleet.
>> Simple.  But once I signed, I don't try to weasel out of it, as most
>> of the discussants in related threads seem to think it's proper to
>> weasel out of such CONTRACTS, nor do I condone the INVALID reasons
>> given by your or others in support of the weaseling.  :-)
>
>Bullshit Bob. You show me where in any of the posts on this subject
>any one of us has said that WE would weasel out of it!

Mike, there's no need to lose your usual cool on this point.  By
saying that signing the CITED WAIVER (contract) means nothing is
condoning what I call "weaseling" out of a clearly worded contract.

Not that I had meant what I said to be read by a lawyer to have to
phrase it exactly right, but I did say "the discussant ... seem to
THINK IT'S PROPER ..."   I never said YOU personally weaseled
out of it (you've NEVER signed such a Peter Hughes contract, for
one thing), but most of the discussants in the related threads
certain CONDONE those who ignored the terms of the signed contract
and hence, to MY way of defining "weaseling" to cover that aspect
of not honoring a signed contract (for whatever reason) an act
of "weaseling".

>>
>> In short, I don't play any crooked game lawyers play, and prey, on
>> moral grounds alone.  :-)   Since we are beating horses, call that
>> my HIGH HORSE if you will.
>
>Not a bad horse to be sitting on, but I damn sure don't appreciate
>being accused of being a weasel just because I discuss what may
>happen in the case of an incident where lawsuits my be filed.

I am sorry you have mistaken what I said personally.  I hope my
explanation made it clear that it was NOT the case you thought
I meant.

-- Bob.